Episode Four

Episode Four

In Episode Four of A World on the Brink, Dee Smith examines the changing nature of conflict. Breaking down some of the greatest threats to our world and their impact on nations, geopolitics, and individuals. From nuclear, cyber, and bio war to technology as a disruptive force and the threats from the connectivity revolution to dangers arising from natural disasters and to what might perhaps be the greatest threat of them all, human nature.
https://www.realvision.com/world-brink-disclaimer/

Comments

A lot of anti Brexit stuff here, I just want to say a few words in defense of Michael Gove's "people have had enough of experts" quote. If people have had enough of experts it is because their expertise has proven to be unreliable, such as the experts who swore that Iraq had wmd's and the financial experts who said house prices couldn't drop to name just two examples. What he really should have said is people doubt expert's expertise.
On fake news a similar phenomenon exists journalists became noticeably more partisan in recent years and colluded in cover ups such as the grooming gangs in the uk and other inconvenient facts. This combined with the left wing narrative that objective truth doesn't exist inevitably leads people to distrust mainstream news sources.
Finally, Brexit may or may not prove to be a financial disaster but it was founded on the belief that many British people were brought up with that their leaders should be democratically accountable to them. This was not the case with the EU: presidents, commissioners etc were all appointed without reference to them. The people they did elect in the UK increasingly told them that what they wanted couldn't be done because the EU would not allow it. Add to this the huge scale of immigration (Douglas Murray's strange death of Europe is v good on this) the euro crisis and the refugee crisis and you can better understand why the vote went the way it did.

Or in other words:
"I am Dee Smith - you should believe everything I say, because it is the truth. Anything you think is wrong, because you get your ideas from Facebook & Twitter only and these ideas are wrong, it's in fact, scary how wrong you think. If you don't change your mind, fight the enemy within and start thinking like me, then all the fire and brimstone will be hurled upon you, mark my words."

This series is pure evil propaganda.........
Listen to the liar Geordie Greig at (minus) 21:00 minutes.
He tells some ludicrous anecdotal story about Trump and some tiles on his bathroom wall, then makes that mean that everything Trump says is a lie and that the world is going to perish as a result... what a joke, what a hack, what a liar.... Dismal, dismal series.

The whole premise of this series, is what is wrong with this guy, Dee Smith, and all those like him.
"We live in a world of rapidly rising and transforming threats on many fronts."
It's called paranoia. It's a mental disorder.

It is a very interesting topic to explore. But going, for example, to a director of George W Bush Institute to talk about false belief is an intellectual insult.. A lot of good points, but also a lot of misdirections. Thank God we have RAND and the like to save us all... : )

unfortunately this episode is similar to previous globalist self promotion themes. For instance, if you wish to discuss deceptive reporting then look no further than US mainstream media who during this election cycle were exposed for what they have become ... a disinformation enterprise that rivals totalitarian states. We should thank media like RV and other independent outlets who help the regular person learn the real facts.

This whole series has been a "How the CFR, Central Banking, New World Order friendly shit-bags see the world" perspective. Hard to watch without vomiting. Where's James Corbett, Sibel Edmonds, William Binney, Wayne Madsen, or any other decent analyst / whistleblower who has actually NAILED the last 10-15 years of Geopolitics? I really love what RealVision does... but this isn't the RealVision I know.

Civilization, in fact, grows more and more maudlin and hysterical; especially under democracy it tends to degenerate into a mere combat of crazes; the whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary. - H. L. Mencken

Seriously, how do you fix climate change? You have to believe that human beings can play god and control everything. I believe that climate change is going to occur regardless. I think a valid "climate change" worry is a nuclear exchange. I think most of this is hype. Go on the Communist Party USA website - one of the tenants of their platform is to support environmental movements. One solution - electric cars are not green, considering the amount mining, smelting and disposable of the metals in the batteries. Overall, this is all about control.
Dee takes the mask off at the end. Lets have World Government and World Regulation.

There are many intelligent voices in this world that do not believe in climate change. As for the other information presented here, it is nothing I cannot find on a regular news channel. Bring me a solution or a way to invest not just doom and gloom.

I feel the content of this piece is substantially weakened by all the skipping around. Certain individual threads, say the psychology of holding a certain belief in the face of facts to the contrary, is useful to understand when reflecting on our own emotional ties to a company or trade idea. More focus on a specific topic, and the connection to investing, would be more fruitful.

Cyber risk is limited to public networks, not private networks (which do experience only physical security risks in advance of network risks). Centralized systems only centralize control which may not add any value at all. Get the security sensitive systems off public networks (including VPN).
The Climate change hypothesis is getting old and is unproven despite ongoing change/manipulation of core data and data gathering methods (the energy comes from the sun, reducing atmospheric carbon has many unconsidered negative effects and no measurable impact on temperature). Why has there been no national debate based on data and facts (just beliefs)? Pollution is an issues that must be addressed.
I am curious as to why the Chinese would want to promote climate change action by their competitors (enemies?), perhaps it is in their interest?
The enemy within is being stoked by the fear/terror this type of program spreads. There is little useful insight into how to manage these risks that have been willingly taken through greed (centralizing of financial systems and networks) and use of public networks to limit cost of centralizing infrastructure control systems.
Further centralization (the promoted brand of globalization) is not the answer, nothing new here.

How many episodes must I endure...? The episode is accurately captured in the comments below; I get nothing from these episodes other than reading the excellent commentary by RV subscribers. Last time it was J Goldsmith's website, this time it was a quality book recommendation.

He forgot asteroids, solar EMP, solar radiation variance, super-volcanoes...
Why are the rising sea levels not rising at the beaches that I go to? Isn't sea level sea level? Is it different on the eastern US seaboard than the UK? Actually this is an honest question. Maybe the answer is that it's happening so gradually one wouldn't notice it over a twenty year period. The evidence is not smacking me in the face. Convince me.
I am not stumpin for Trump. But do we really believe him saying something about the origin of tiles in one his places is strong evidence of a world on the brink?

They are rising were I have a beach house. Plus, have had the worst storms and flooding in the last year than over the last 50 years. Yes, it is gradual. But it is starting to be noticed. And it is not political either way, but cities like Miami and Charleston SC are now planning and investing in major initiatives to keep the sea out.

Man cannot control climate change, but can and should control pollution and destruction of the environment. Data suggests a mini-ice age is upon us. Cold weather is very destructive to food production, water and humans. This will cause commodity prices to rise. Antarctica's size is now the largest in recorded history (contrary to taxing global warming authorities), related to sun spots and our magnetic fields. All we can do is plan and protect with the rest up to Mother Nature. World on the Brink is a excellent macro look at everything of consequence. Thx!

Would love to see more perspectives on the topic. This, as many have said, is one specific kind of perspective. I would love to hear more critical views, here is a perfect example, with Philip Giraldi on the Deep State and William S. Lind talking on 4th generation warfare https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipWqr1Vnyj4a

Having watched RV develop from the beginning, I like how its has diversified the format and content. Personally I have found this series thought provoking and of value but I can also appreciate that some will see it as a distraction from RV's core content. I would urge RV to persevere - subscribers should accept that some of RV's content may not be for them.

@Dee;
"recent research has demonstrated that confronting someone with documented evidence refuting a deeply held belief can actually make them hold that belief even more strongly."
Can you please provide references?

This series is an opportunity to gain insights into what the wealthy and powerful think about with regard to the challenges of the future. RV is valuable to the educated layperson of moderate means for this reason.
I want content. I can filter out the fear-mongering, etc. that other commentators refer to. Keep bringing on the content, RV. Kudos!

I am RV member since day one, and I am not happy about the new direction RV has taken. RV initially had very high quality interviews, but recently the quality of the content has diminishing dramatically, forcing the initial subscribers like me to question the necessity of the subscription.

Dear RV Team,
Following on some comments below, and given the plethora of "Big Story" videos and such that have been on RV lately, the style of content delivery is a major step down from what I signed up for. It feels like the platform is completely slipping towards a CNBC style format where a bunch of different people are brought in to give sound bites on whatever hot topic issue is being discussed.
The thing that made RV so great from the start was interviewing people in a long format construct, so that we, the viewer, can understand how these people think, how they frame their thought processes, and hear their perspective on a range of different topics so that we can see if we agree with their thought process / logic / rationale, etc.
While it's interesting to hear perspectives from so many people, it's not helpful when someone that I don't know gives a 2-minute explanation on a topic and I'm left wondering if what they said makes sense and why they think that way.
The reason that so many people have flocked to RV is that the majority of people on here heavily question the information that's spoon fed to them and want to really go in depth with people who have constructs and frameworks that make sense to them. I LOVE RV, but please get back to the old style that made it what it was.

In reading the comments on this episode, and this is true of the comments on the previous episodes, very few commentators talk about the content that was conveyed. Many pay attention to form over content.
Commentators are acting offended by what they just watched; supremely ironic is that the last segment of this episode is about human bias and not being able to change our minds when confronted with new information...at least not easily. Is it possible that commentators don't like what they saw, that the world is a scary place, and they'd just as soon not even be exposed to these ideas because the ideas are challenging to existing belief systems? Seems so.
Few commentators even touch on the key takeaway insight from the episode, and perhaps from the whole series: The world is full of threats; if we're going to avoid big messes or fix the messes we have, it's going to take cooperation.
Re the credibility of the interviewees in this episode, and the previous episodes to be sure, who we might never have heard of before, do your own due diligence if you are not sure. Look up their bios. See what books they wrote, who they advised, the roles they have served. Read articles they've published, speeches they've given, or books they've written. These interviewees are not pundits. I'll take them over a social media feed any day.

If the United States hadn't gone to war on a lie, if it hadn't totally discredited itself publicly and undeniably, if it hadn't needlessly wasted all its blood and treasure on pointless conflicts and shiploads of Made in China crapola, it'd still have the credibility and the resolve and the international support to address some of these issues. If you want solutions, look to the past for the explanation for the problem. This situation exists to a large extent because the United States is now too corrupt to self-correct. So either the American people rise up and impose accountability on the political and corporate class that created this situation, or we'll all be dealing with plague, global insurrection, and nuclear war. Try viewing Trump (or Sanders) through that lens for a change. Obama talked hope but produced nothing except greater indebtedness. And yet the American people persist in their quest for hope and change. That alone is inspiring.

In general, this piece was an unnecessary piece of scare mongering. If you are at all informed, you're aware of these risks, just as you're aware of the reasons they exist - a reckless and indulged political and corporate class that has, so far, escaped any serious attempt to impose accountability. Long on moody music, ridiculous B roll, cliche, and predictable opinion. Short on countervailing opinion, fresh perspective, and serious effort. Because that would imply an honest interest in solutions, which may dispute and rebuke the sort of conventional perspective that so easily excuses those responsible for these problems. The intent here is to frighten, to create a reaction, to manipulate. Surprise. Interesting that none of the risks apparently include the entrenchment of corruption and mobsterism among globalised elites and institutions.

The risk of closed minds evidently doesn't include an acknowledgement that globalisation as constructed by the incompetent elites of the past 25 years is almost exclusively responsible for the litany of threats that the same elites, as exclused and promoted by Dee Smith, seem to believe can only be solved by further eradication of national boundaries. That refusal to acknowledge responsibility apparently is only evidence of an inability to accommodate "fact" rather than succumb to "narratives." And yet these are the same elites who used the very same "narrative" techniques shamelessly and relentlessly promoted to justify an amazingly reckless set of policies whose consequences are - surprise - now revealed to be dangerous, this time on a global scale. God forbid anybody should suggest that actually the solution to all of this to dismantle the system that created these risks, while imprisoning those responsible for this situation.

Gets better and better, just love this series!
One point I do agree strongly with is the idea that complexity breeds vulnerability, especially in the tech/software space.
Society in general is increasing complexity at an exponential rate, and this will have future (negative) consequences.

This is the first down-vote I have given on RVTV. Honestly sad about that, given the history of fantastic content here.
No proprietary value-add from the speakers in this episode. All the threats and analyses are well-known. No problem-solving involved in the piece; neither concrete suggestions or frameworks to arrive at one. Recycled narratives in an echo chamber.
Small exception: Ambassador Jordan.

I think by now we all realize there is no such thing as a truly secure computer when its connected to the internet. Every time I hear hand-wringing about a cyber attack of the power grid I'm amazed they never address the obvious solution, don't allow internet connectivity to critical infrastructure. Power grid worked just fine preinternet, why put the possibility of a cyber attack on the power grid in the realm of the possible?
Everything is a trade off, connecting things to the internet trades security for convenience. At what point does security take precedence over convenience? We used to use punch cards for voting, now we use internet connected voting machines. Just look at the election mess, endless claims of hacking and youtube videos that show anyone anywhere in the world could hack the voting machines and flip votes. Why no calls to go back to punch cards?
Does it make sense to anyone to have hackable voting machines attached to the internet?
Why put the possibility of a hacked election in the realm of the possible?
Whatever happen to avoiding obvious problems?
I'm guessing there must be good money in hand-wringing and pushing the FEAR narrative.

You raise some great points Eric and I agree with you.
I've been in the software development space for over 30 years and it riles me to see how tech is seen as the solution to every problem - well it's NOT, and never will be! But unfortunately this will be the mantra until some major black swan event occurs and then everyone will think again, and that day I feel is not in the too distant future!
PS: RV - you could do a whole mini-series like this one on just the tech sector? You can't get much more global macro than tech.

Eric, It's not a simple as not connecting a computer to a network. Computers, or anything that contains a microchip such as logic controllers are susceptible to viruses, no industry is immune regardless of the measures or precautions taken. Entire control systems can be air gapped, it makes no difference, they are still vulnerable. This is exactly what happened in 2010 with Stuxnet and the Iranian uranium enrichment facility at Natanz.

Dear RealVision team,
I appreciate what you gents are trying to do. You've caught the storytelling wave and you are trying to make it work. I commend you for trying, but the trouble is, it's not working. While it may be great for journalism, where the reader wants to empathize with the world, it does not appear to be suitable for finance. Story creates empathy. Finance has no need for empathy.
May I suggest an alternative approach? There is a book called Clear and Simple as the Truth. In it, the author's present several types of writing styles, including oratorical, romantic, classic, reflexive, and more. They all offer different ways of dealing with truth and the presenting it to an audience. Of these, I think the classic style would really fit well with your goals and content.
Classic style starts with the assumption that truth can be known. When an author decides to write, it is only because he has seen a truth and thinks it is interesting to others. The author's task is then to use the medium (in this case prose) to effectively build a transparent window so that intelligent people are able to the see truth and recognize it for what it is. The classic writer does not try to convince. The classic writer does not try to sell. The classic writer does not use gimmicks.
I think that is what we RealVision viewers would like. Build us a window that presents truth. Build us a window into conversations with smart people. Build us a window into the analysis of smart people. Build us a window that shows us things that only you guys have access to - things we don't even know we want.
I think you guys actually fell into this style by accident. Your original interviews were exactly this - a window into some smart conversations between equals. The viewer was treated as an equal that didn't need to be spoon fed. Perhaps you could try getting back to what resonated with people.

Totally agree with Daniel. Just good conversations was what made RV great. Now it's just ok content. I like this series but it's nothing new for people who actually read history and are informed about the world.

Well stated, Daniel M. I have never noted a comment to a Real Vision video that received more universal affirmative support. Yet, Real Vision labeled this interchange as "Hotly Debated". The only debate seems to be from viewers questioning the direction that Real Vision is taking toward slick scripted storytelling.

What will Dee's conclusion be? Global government? The rule of expert elites? Will the world's uncertainties be resolved through massive centralization or by a diaspora of competing markets, groups and nations? I side with the diverse and competing groups. Experts from central banks, the UN, the EU, the US .. have had it all wrong. Let true markets and nations compete to wrangle out more efficiency and growth and thus 'save the world.'

How come it's impossible not to hear of "climate change" any given day??? The climate has ALWAYS changed on the earth since the beginning of time!! Almost every media is talking about global warming. What usually happens when everybody is on the same side (and they think they are right!), the opposite will happen...
Take a moment to read some of Martin Armstrong views on the subject and it might open your eyes:
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/?s=climate+change

Steph .. The global warming synopsis was overblown. Storm intensity and frequency have not increased. The sea level is not accelerating. This all sounds like Paul Ehrlich (a Stanford prof and expert) from the 1980's. He concluded that world would starve to death. It didn't happen. Instead we all got fat.

Robert I think if you looked deeper into the message you would understand that this is good info. Their is a good book called End of the line that explains how fragile our system is to risks such as weather and terrorism and RV has captured the idea very accurately. It opens your mind up instead of just spitting out trade ideas like a lot of newsletters. RV is doing a great job!

Thats right. I think RV management could have avoided lots of negative commentary and the entire shitstorm about this series by airing this one first.
Maybe get more involved in the day to day business RV founders!